Pre-Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

The proof is that I exist, you exist, everything I perceive exists, God is all that is.

That is not "proof". You would still exist if there was no God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is not "proof". You would still exist if there was no God.

You do not understand what is being explained to you, existence is God, God is all that exists, ie., God is Existence.. The word God is a concept that represents the reality of Existence. The word Existence is also a concept that represents the reality of God,

So to your question, would I still exist if there was no god/existence? .. nothing* would exist, and so you would not exist to be asking the question.
* nothing actually does not exist.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No thoughts necessary, nothing can not exist. Science can not provide any hard evidence of nothing, nor can religion.
Existence otoh exists, it does nothing else. Science can not provide any hard evidence of existence never existing, nor can religion.

But why is this the form existence takes?

 

[F1fan]

You do not understand what is being explained to you, existence is existence, existence is all that exists, ie., existence is Existence.. The word existence is a concept that represents the reality of Existence. The word Existence is also a concept that represents the reality of existence,

So to your question, would I still exist if there was no god/existence? .. nothing* would exist, and so you would not exist to be asking the question.
* nothing actually does not exist.

OK, so we can eliminate any time you use the word God and replace it with "existence" as I did with your quote.

I take it you have no problem with this, yes?

As you explain it the word "god" doesn't mean anything in a religious context and is not useful. Since you insist the word "god" is synonymous with the word "existence" we will just change the word "existence" any time you use the word "god" just to make sure others aren't confused. Deal?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But why is this the form existence takes?

The mortal mind can not apprehend the whole, whatever our mortal mind's best limited perception allows, it is not the true form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do not understand what is being explained to you, existence is God, God is all that exists, ie., God is Existence.. The word God is a concept that represents the reality of Existence. The word Existence is also a concept that represents the reality of God,

So to your question, would I still exist if there was no god/existence? .. nothing* would exist, and so you would not exist to be asking the question.
* nothing actually does not exist.

That is either just an empty claim or a demotion of God to next to nothing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, so we can eliminate any time you use the word God and replace it with "existence" as I did with your quote.

I take it you have no problem with this, yes?

As you explain it the word "god" doesn't mean anything in a religious context and is not useful. Since you insist the word "god" is synonymous with the word "existence" we will just change the word "existence" any time you use the word "god" just to make sure others aren't confused. Deal?

Yes, but context is always in play in any conceptual expression.

God does mean something in the religious context, but so does every concept used in any verbal exchange given that concepts only represent a reality, but are not actually the reality.

No, existence in the context 'God is existence' implies all existence, known and unknown, God as a concept is not synonymous with the concept of material existence. The whole is greater than the part, so while it is true that all that exists is God, a part otoh, you for example, are not God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is either just an empty claim or a demotion of God to next to nothing.

You probably do understand but are pretending not to because you know that you have lost, hence the attempt to distract because that is what you always revert to when you are out of your depth.

 

[rational experiences]

A conscious human says I'm aware in a light and not alight two bodies 12 both a timed experience. Heavens gas and water. Spirit.

How I knew. I'm not any term mass or its big bang. I know I'm advised.

Therefore I know as our planet owns hot dense matter within. Once it was hot dense in space cooling. By pressures coldness to its gained rock seal.

I can't know the idea of it unless experienced in my owned self presence. The theist human.

So I notice a sun isnt a planet.

The idea it had to be cooling too as a sun to release itself by a blast that stopped consuming it's own mass.

Star mass the proof. New space holes...lost sun mass and it's holding.

Therefore life on earth involves it's sun only big bang.

What was once not a hole as nothing. Also Proven. As I can make sin K holes in earth by science causes myself.

Is why I knew space was nothing.

So a pre mass had to exist as one type... no hole...hole is burnt mass to produce burnt cooled mass and a hole.

Basic I think first to tell stories owning no factors or need to factor. As a human has not caused that event.

I would then question my own being conscious self why I think I had. By my own behaviours.

The only answer. The term Eternal is real.

It has to own an entity within it to have reasoned change if it had always existed. As always existed owns no motivation to not exist.

If you were still in that entities position. First status. Wouldn't your conscious idealism claim ownership in having caused causes?

To not be involved in mass or burning to how energy became.

To only be present after suns density altered earths mass heavens a clear state? Having come over from the eternal body. Be a human. Survive. Have sex to continue by my human baby cell.

Life converting changing constantly by heavens conditions. Die. Still bio change as the created human. Bio change to a solid skeleton then disintegrate into dusts.

I would claim it a logical advice it's real.

As gods mass planet formed in space hasn't ended as dusts. But sun attack caused it to become dusts.

Proving natural history about spirit is real. The sun destroys us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You probably do understand but are pretending not to because you know that you have lost, hence the attempt to distract because that is what you always revert to when you are out of your depth.

I genuinely do not. And neither do you apparently. Knowledge is demonstrable and you have been just preaching. That is telling us what you believe. It is not telling why.

 

[rational experiences]

You probably do understand but are pretending not to because you know that you have lost, hence the attempt to distract because that is what you always revert to when you are out of your depth.

Science is a human practice. Most of the practice is telling human studies about beliefs. As any item you studied didn't invite said study.

To do other science is to take the physical mass and change it as a human not as science. Science is really just its practice not it's studies.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I genuinely do not. And neither do you apparently. Knowledge is demonstrable and you have been just preaching. That is telling us what you believe. It is not telling why.

I repeat my earlier comment for your benefit.

God can not be described by any words.
God can not be measured by any numbers.
God can not be limited by any time.
God can not be circumscribed into any whole.

God is that which is expressed by all that is, the relative miniscule amount of material creation available to human perception is all that science can study, and that can never prove or disprove God. Humans can theorize, hypothesize, and speculate all they want, nothing wrong in that, but the serious student of God merely aspires to be one with God, no beliefs, calculations, imaginations are needed, we are already an expression of God so all that is essential is to realize that truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I repeat my earlier comment for your benefit.

God can not be described by any words.
God can not be measured by any numbers.
God can not be limited by any time.
God can not be circumscribed into any whole.

God is that which is expressed by all that is, the relative miniscule amount of material creation available to human perception is all that science can study, and that can never prove or disprove God. Humans can theorize, hypothesize, and speculate all they want, nothing wrong in that, but the serious student of God merely aspires to be one with God, no beliefs, calculations, imaginations are needed, we are already an expression of God so all that is essential is to realize that truth.

And without some sort of evidence or rational reasoning those are just empty claims. Far more likely to be false than to be true.

That is what you believe. It does not appear to be what you know.;

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And without some sort of evidence or rational reasoning those are just empty claims. Far more likely to be false than to be true.

That is what you believe. It does not appear to be what you know.;

You can theorize, hypothesize, and speculate all you want, nothing wrong in that, God bless you SZ.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, but context is always in play in any conceptual expression.

And context is important when using language.

God does mean something in the religious context, but so does every concept used in any verbal exchange given that concepts only represent a reality, but are not actually the reality.

But when you use the word "god" as meaning the same as "existence" then it isn't synonymous to any religious context. In a religious context the word "god" doesn't correspond to anything known to be real or existant.

No, existence in the context 'God is existence' implies all existence, known and unknown,

Well there are things we know exist as a category, and there is likely some things that exist that we don't know about. It is important to understand the difference. The word "god" is objectively irrelevant. Your use is your quirkiness.

God as a concept is not synonymous with the concept of material existence.

Not in the religious context. But you have been making this claim all along, god is existence. Existence is materially real. Or are you changing your rules yet again due to confusion?

The whole is greater than the part, so while it is true that all that exists is existence, a part otoh, you for example, are not existence.

Really, I don't exist? Well my mortgage company still expects me to pay next month.

Notice I fixed your quote for accuracy and to avoid ambiguity. I'd hate for someone to think you were trying to move goalposts. You wouldn't do that, would you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can theorize, hypothesize, and speculate all you want, nothing wrong in that, God bless you SZ.

I am not the one making God claims. That would be you. Right now you keep showing us that you only have beliefs.

Tell me, why should anyone give any credence about anything that you say about God?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And context is important when using language.

But when you use the word "god" as meaning the same as "existence" then it isn't synonymous to any religious context. In a religious context the word "god" doesn't correspond to anything known to be real or existant.

Well there are things we know exist as a category, and there is likely some things that exist that we don't know about. It is important to understand the difference. The word "god" is objectively irrelevant. Your use is your quirkiness.

Not in the religious context. But you have been making this claim all along, god is existence. Existence is materially real. Or are you changing your rules yet again due to confusion?

Really, I don't exist? Well my mortgage company still expects me to pay next month.

Notice I fixed your quote for accuracy and to avoid ambiguity. I'd hate for someone to think you were trying to move goalposts. You wouldn't do that, would you?

You are all over the place. So that we each understand clearly what the other's understanding of the reality represented by the name God is, let's lay it out. You at least have read my explanation, see post #72, now what is your's?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not the one making God claims. That would be you. Right now you keep showing us that you only have beliefs.

Tell me, why should anyone give any credence about anything that you say about God?

It is not about me, when I say God bless SZ, interpret it as a wish for your well being.

I can't show you God, you must realize God yourself, that how it works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not about me, when I say God bless SZ, interpret it as a wish for your well being.

I can't show you God, you must realize God yourself, that how it works.

You can't show me your god because he does not seem to exist. You can't even support his existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can't show me your god because he does not seem to exist. You can't even support his existence.

If you have not had a subjective spiritual experience, it is not possible for you to know if it is real. Of course you can believe, disbelieve, or be agnostic about such a claim but you can not know. That is your position, accept it.